It took him a while to find out about it but David Straiton wants his money from the animated show he says he co-created and he wants to put his former business partner in front of a jury to get it. The journeyman TV director today filed a complaint (read it here) in LA Superior Court over Johnny Test against Big Time Rush EP Scott Fellows. Straiton, who has helmed episodes of House,Grimm, Netflix’s Hemlock Grove and the second episode of ABC’s upcoming Marvel’s Agents Of S.H.I.E.LD., says that he and Fellows came up with the Johnny Test show idea back in 1995. They partnered on the concept and even tried unsuccessfully to pitch it to various networks and cable stations. Seems after that didn’t work out, Straiton dropped the project to move on to other things. Fellows, according to today’s complaint of constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and accounting, did not. He kept at in and eventually sold the show to the WB a few years later without compensating or even telling Straiton, the suit alleges. Johnny Test is about an 11-year-old boy and his two mega-genius sisters that debuted on the Kids’ WB block on September 17. 2005. The show stayed on the station until 2008 after it became the CW and now currently airs domestically on Cartoon Network in its sixth season. Fellows is credited as EP on the series as he is on Nickelodeon’s Big Time Rush which he is also credited with creating. Because he “an adult,” as the complaint says and because he only recently let his daughter watch TV, Straiton only discovered Johnny Test on November 1, 2012 while looking though the on-screen guide on his TV. Less than three weeks later, he says he requested that Fellows and his Jack Mackie Pictures loanout company give “an accounting of revenues derived from Johnny Test pursuant to their partnership.” Fellows said “No,” according to Straiton and so we have today’s lawsuit. In this civil case of a value exceeding $25,000, the director is seeking damages up and possibly more than 50% of the money that Johnny Test has made, “the value of the credit Plaintiff failed to receive on Johnny Test,” punitive and other consequential damages plus interest, legal fees and whatever else the court will give him. David Straiton is represented by Thomas Brackey and Derek Lemkin of Beverly Hills firm Freund & Brackey LLP.

28 Comments

doubtful • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

Not all of the facts are in, but it seems odd that someone could drop out of assisting in the sale of an idea, and then when someone else puts in the blood, sweat and tears to make it happen years later, come back and ask for half.

excuse me? • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

So you’re saying that a guy who co-created an idea should just cede his participation in the project because his partner sold it (and clearly never told him about its progress)? You come up with an idea with a partner, you share in the proceeds. There are plenty of talented people who are hopeless at selling — that doesn’t mean they aren’t entitled to their share. Don’t know the facts here, but your analysis is absurd.

Frank • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

Unless you continually reach out to that person, they don’t return calls or emails. They get busy and their interest drops off because the thing didn’t sell. So you keep at it, eventually sell it. You did the lion’s share of the work, did the revisions on the pitch, and then you have to ask, what does that other person deserve for their level of participation in a pitch? Half? Did they do half the work? Waiting for facts are a good idea.

doubtful • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

The brief article sounded like what Frank laid out – which was the basis of my original commentary. The percentages at the beginning may not represent a fair split of proceeds, especially for a project where these is a long time between original development and a sale. But that difference will be hashed out in arbitration or the court system.

Cap • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

Greed will get you every time. Team Fellows would be wise to settle, cause a jury will take him to the cleaners. If the partnership was papered then pay up.

Lovedatturles • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

Why are they suing over Johnny Test in 2013? The show has been going on since 2005, they’ve had 8 years to sue over it. Even accounting for how horrendously slow the American court systems and that they might’ve filed the lawsuit a few years ago for it to just get taken on by a judge now, there’s still no reason why they should’ve sat around this long while Cookie Jar and Cartoon Network reaped in the rewards.

Mike • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

People only sue after money has been made, or there isn’t really much to be awarded as damages.

Agate • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

Your question is answered at the bottom of the article.

TV Fan • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

The answer to your question is in the article.

RandyV • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

“Because he’s “an adult,” as the complaint says and because he only recently let his daughter watch TV, Straiton only discovered Johnny Test on November 1, 2012 while looking though the on-screen guide on his TV.”

So, exactly how much of the article did you read?

Frank • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

Find that remarkably hard to believe.

Anonymous • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

Did you read the article? He only found out about it in 2012. It’s a show for very young kids and he never knew about it until he had a kid of his own and watched TV with her. Read the article before you post stupid things.

Hootadoota • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

His allegation is that he just found out about the production of the show because he doesn’t watch cartoons himself, and he barely started letting his kid watch tv.

Sounds somewhat dubious on the kid part, but it’s understandable for an adult to not know about the existence of a cartoon if they didn’t have kids who watched tv.

TJ • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

Until my niece and nephew were born, I couldn’t have told you the names of any of the current cartoons or kids shows on the air save Spongebob, so I personally don’t find that hard to believe.

Fredfred • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

So ya didn’t bother to read the entire article?

Lizerd • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

About time, this cartoon is terrible and would be a blessing if it was canceled thanks to this man.

Haywood Jablowme • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

Straiton should also sue Nickelodeon for Jimmy Neutron proceeds because its the same EXACT show. And Nickelodeon should sue Fellows for ripping their show off while he worked there. And then Jimmy and Johnny should travel back in time (which they seem to do every episode) and then using a wacky contraption make sure their creators never created them in the first place.

HoopCooper • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

No one is saying anything about what the original show that Straiton and Fellows created. If Fellows spent years after, pitching something related…just how related to the similar show is it? In animation, I’ve never seen a single show that made it to air that didn’t have someone point at it and say “that was mine.” I think a lot of it has to do with what Straiton and Fellows original show was…and how it relates to “Johnny Test.” Was the original entitled “Johnny Test?” Were these the characters? Was this the design?

Always have a recluse option in a contract. That states, if one partner decides to move on and not ‘invest’ any more time in the projects. Essentially gives up, then that person is not entitled to proceeds of the project should one partner continue to pursue it.
Personally I think its a scumbag move to walk away and then come back only after all the work has been done.
if I were being sued in this case, I would add in all my “fees” for consulting, selling, pitching the project all the years it was not making money, to ensure that this scumbag does not get a penny.
These kinds of lawsuits remind me of patent trolls and ambulance chasing lawyers, it might be legal but it doesn’t mean they are not scum bags..

Umm • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

He’s a TV director… his old partner sold one of their old TV ideas… it premiered on TV eight years ago… yet he didn’t realize until NOW that it has been sold, produced, aired, re-aired, licensed to Netflix, and merchandized up the butt???

This isn’t a big business… and he’s currently active in it. Pretty sure I’d know if my old partner had been producing our co-created TV show for the past eight years.

Have we established if he has the use of his eyeballs?

Anonymous • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

Cartoons and live TV isn’t same game.

hmmm • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

Seems like David Straiton can pretty easily prove this case. If they did got out together to pitch then he just has to get whatever executive/s they met with to verify that fact. Once that’s done, Scott Fellows is going to owe a fair amount of money.

Feedback • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

I find it hard to believe that a guy who spent years developing, pitching and producing a children’s television show had so little interest in children’s TV that he had no idea his own show had been airing for 8 years. I’m sorry but that’s just absurd.

Anonymous • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

Johnny Test nowhere near shows he directed.

abba7 • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

It says he dropped the project while Fellows carried on. Wouldn’t this mean he therefor had nothing to do with it from that moment on. At least a verbal agreement that it belonged to Fellows. It wasn’t like sat down on a bench for a rest from peddling the show and for Fellows to keep on and contact him. He simply gave up his side of the partnership. He gave up the dream for the show and Fellows didn’t. Why should he be rewarded for giving up?

Anonymous • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

You know nothing about portion of creative work each did on idea for the show, but somehow assume that SELLING beats CREATION regardless.

pat • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

THe main problem is how much of johnny test is like the original concept and how much is different
Lot of shows have genius in them But not all follow the same plot
Dexter, Jimmy, The Test Sister each have their own plot
SO until more information comes out it is unwise to try and figure who did who wrong

Rdz2k13 • on Sep 17, 2013 5:53 pm

Johnny Test isn’t a bad show it’s Cartoon Network they are running it to the ground, in my opinion Johnny Test should have ended from Season 4 or at least reboot the Series like they did with Xaolin Chronicles so it’ll won’t be called a rip off to (what some Fans claim it to be a rip off to) Dexter’s Lab I don’t how started it but I don’t believe Johnny Test to be a rip off to Johnny Test